DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s. United Spirits Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1378/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57422 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA CHOWDHRY CITII
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRADEEP
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 144; 15

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES B BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, J.M ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE. - APPELLANT VS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LT D. SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD. WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S SHAW WALLACE DISTILLERIES LTD. AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOT MERGED WITH M/S MC DOWELL & COMPANY NOW RENAMED AS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.) UB TOWERS, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. - RESPONDENT PA NO. : AACCM8043J DATE OF HEARING : 05/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/01/2012 APPELLANT BY : SMT. ARCHANA CHOWDHRY, CIT-II RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K R PRADEEP, C.A. O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-VI, BANGALORE, DA TED 27.9.2010. THE PAGE 2 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 2 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS [AYS] ARE 2002-03 TO 2005- 06 IN THE CASE OF M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED, BANGALORE. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FIVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CHALLENGE, THE SUBSTANCES OF WHICH ARE T HAT (1) THE CIT (A) HAD OVERLOOKED THE DOCUMENTS UNEARTHED IN THE PREMISES OF SRI R.K. MIGLANI CONTAINED DETAILS OF I LLEGAL PAYMENTS BY VARIOUS DISTILLERIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE; & (2) THE FINDINGS OF THE EARLIER BENCH [117 ITD 201] REL IED ON BY THE CIT (A) IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND HAS NO RELEVA NCE TO THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE. 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BEING S IMILAR AND COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER, C ONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMMON ORDER. 4. BRIEFLY, THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE APPELLANT COMP ANYS [THE APPELLANT IN SHORT] NATURE OF BUSINESS BEING MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR [IMFL]. THERE WAS AN ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED GROUP OF CASES AND T HE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE SHRI R.K.MIGLANI, SECRETARY GENERAL OF UTTAR PRADESH DISTILLERIES ASSOCIATION [UPDA] ON 14.2.2006 AND DURING THE COUR SE OF OPERATION, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE UNEARTHED WHICH, ACCOR DING TO THE REVENUE, REVEALED THAT ILLEGAL PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY VARIOUS D ISTILLERIES TO VARIOUS AGENCIES AND THE UPDA ACTED AS NODAL AGENCY FOR MAKI NG THE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY SHRI MIGLANI IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER OATH; THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED FROM THE PREMISES OF UPDA ALSO PAGE 3 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 3 REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT [CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD] AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF UPDA HAD MADE CERTAIN ILLEGAL PAYMENT S. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENTS FO R THE AYS UNDER CHALLENGE HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED U/S 144 R.W. SECTIONS 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT TOOK UP THE ISSUES FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER DISPUTE WITH THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER DUE CON SIDERATION OF THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS, CHIEFLY, AS TO WHETHER THE AO WAS WITHIN HIS REALM TO ASSUME THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND ALSO PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYBHAI N. CHANDRANI V. ACIT REPORTED IN 231 CTR 474 (GUJ) AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF (I) THE EARLIER BENCH IN THE CASE OF P SRINIVASA NA YAK REPORTED IN 117 ITD 201 AND (II) THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN M EGHMANI ORGANICS LTD V. DCIT [129 TTJ 255], THE CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED THU S: (ON PAGE 14) IN VIEW OF THE FACT AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE AS THE PRIMARY CONDIT ION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCO ME- TAX ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED, HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS IN GROUND NO.6 & 9 AR E ALLOWED. 6. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE REVENUES SU BMISSIONS WERE THE FOLLOWING : PAGE 4 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 4 (I) THAT THE CIT (A) HAD OVERLOOKED THE FACT THA T THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI R.K.MIGL ANI, SECRETARY OF UPDA CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF ILLEGAL PAYMENTS BY VAR IOUS DISTILLERIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT SRI MIGLANI HAD MAINTAINED THE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATI ON. THEREFORE, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CAN CORRECTLY BE SAID TO BE BELONGI NG TO THE APPELLANT; (II) THAT HE HAD ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY HIM [P SRINIVASA NAYAK (117 I TD 201)] WERE DIFFERENT, IN THE SENSE THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS I N THAT CASE DID NOT CONTAIN RECORDING OF ANY TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE SEIZED MA TERIALS CONTAINED RECORDING OF TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLAN T WHICH HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY SRI MIGLANI ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ; AND (III) THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH [117 ITD 201] HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE SEIZED MATE RIALS CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF INTEREST I N THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SRI MIGLANI. 6.1. IN CONCLUSION, THE LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO DISTINGUISH THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BE NCH CITED SUPRA IN A BETTER PERSPECTIVE AND, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED AND THAT OF THE AO BE SUSTA INED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A R WAS ARGUED THAT THE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION WERE THE COPIES OF TH E SEIZED MATERIAL CONCERNING TO SHRI MIGLANI. IT WAS, FURTHER, ARGUE D THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY DOCUMENTS/ASSET(S) BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDERTAKEN IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI MIGLANI AND THAT NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD NO PAGE 5 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 5 JURISDICTION OR ANY MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO INVOKE TH E PROVISIONS OF S.153C OF THE ACT. STRONGLY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE RULING OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH CIT ED SUPRA, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS CONCLUDED U/S 153A R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT WERE BAD IN LAW. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE LD. A R THAT THE LANGU AGE USED IN S.153C OF THE ACT IS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED U /S 158BD OF THE ACT. AS PER S. 158 BD OF THE ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IF A NY UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATES TO OTHER PERSON, THEN, ACTION AGAINST SUCH PERSON CAN BE TAKEN, PROVIDED SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS REFERABLE TO TH E DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, S. 153C OF THE ACT SAYS THAT IF VALUABLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO OTHER PE RSONS ARE SEIZED, THEN ACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST SUC H PERSONS. ILLUSTRATING FURTHER WITH REGARD TO S. 153C (1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. A R ARGUED THAT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE AO, OF THE SEARCHED PERSON: (I) HAS TO ARRIVE ON A SATISFACTION THAT ANY MONEY, BULLI ON, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGS OR BELONG TO OT HER PERSON RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C ARE TO BE INITIATED, AND THEN (II) HAND OVER SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VA LUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS T O THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. ONLY AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF THE ABOVE TWO CONDITI ONS BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE AO HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF S. 153A OF THE PAGE 6 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 6 ACT. THE BASIC DIFFERENCE OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 15 8BD AND 153C OF THE ACT IS IN REGARD TO THE SATISFACTION TO BE ARRIVED BY TH E AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. IN THE CASE OF SECTION 158BD, THE AO HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON WHICH MAY EVEN BE BASED ON THE ENTRY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BELONGS TO THE PERSON SEARCHED, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF S. 153C, THE AO OF THE PERSO N SEARCHED HAS TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOC UMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED FROM THE PERSON SEARCHED BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON, T HUS EVEN IN THE CASE WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON SEIZED DOES NOT REPRESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME, PROCE EDING U/S 153C HAS TO BE INITIATED AGAINST SUCH PERSON BUT THE PROCEEDING U/ S 153C CANNOT BE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOTICED FROM THE ENTRIES OR TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BELONGS TO THE PE RSON SEARCHED. THUS, IN THE CASE OF S.158BD, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUM ENTS BELONGS TO THE PERSON SEARCHED WHICH CONTAINS THE ENTRIES OR TRANS ACTIONS IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF OTHER PERSON HAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO HAVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON WHEREAS IN T HE CASE OF S.153C, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS BELONGS TO THE PERSO NS SEARCHED EVEN CONTAIN THE ENTRIES OR TRANSACTION WHICH REPRESENT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF OTHER PERSON CANNOT BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON, ONLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON HAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON WHO HAS T O PROCEED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AFTER RECEIVING SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF SEIZED D OCUMENTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOWED ALL THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANT AS THE DOC UMENTS CONTAINED THE PAGE 7 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 7 TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF UPDA WHICH INCLUDED THE APPELLANT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DID NOT I NDICATE ANY LIMITED INTEREST OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE APPELLANT IN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE XER OX COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AOS WHO WERE H AVING THE JURISDICTION OVER VARIOUS DISTILLERIES, THE TRANSACTIONS OF WHIC H WERE RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO UPDA. EACH PAGE OF THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS CONTAINS THE NOTING IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DISTILLERIES WHICH ITSELF PROVES THAT THE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. TO HIGH LIGHT HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE VALID PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE INITIATED WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS B ELONGS TO THE APPELLANT ARE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE HANDED OVER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT. 7.1. IN CONCLUSION, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT AS THERE WER E NO DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT SEIZED AND, HENCE, THE SAME WERE N OT HANDED OVER TO THE AO WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT, BUT, ONLY XEROX COPIES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO OF THE APPELLANT. WIT HOUT RECEIVING THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT SEIZED FROM TH E AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INITIATED. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH RE LIANCE WAS PLACED. PAGE 8 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 8 8.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ACTION U/S 132 OF THE AC T AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI MIGLANI, SOME INCRIMINA TING DOCUMENTS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED WHICH, ACCORDING TO REVENUE, REVEALED ILLEGAL PAYMENTS MADE BY VARIOUS DISTILLERIES TO PUBLIC SERVA NTS AND THAT THE IMPOUNDED MATERIALS REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF UPDA WHICH ALSO INDULGED IN CERTAIN ILLEGAL PAYMENTS . ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE NARRATION, THE APPELLANT WAS CALLED UPON BY WAY OF IS SUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT TO FURNISH ITS RETURNS OF INCOME. 8.1.1. THUS, THE CORE ISSUE BEFORE THIS BENCH IS: WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS SPHERE TO CALL UPO N THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH ITS RETURNS OF INCOME ON THE SOLITARY REASO NING THAT THE APPELLANTS WAS ALSO ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF UPDA WHO HAD MADE CERTAIN ILLEGAL PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PUBLIC SERVANTS? AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER BOOKS OF AC COUNT NOR ANY DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WERE DISCOVERED DURING T HE COURSE OF ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI M IGLANI. SUCH BEING A SITUATION, IT IS WORTH-WHILE AS TO WHETHER THE AO W AS JUSTIFIED IN HIS STAND IN ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 153A R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT. T O FIND AN ANSWER, WE SHALL HAVE A GLANCE AT SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WHICH READ S AS UNDER: 153C (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECT ION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SAT ISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS S EIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHE R THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR PAGE 9 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/BA NG/2010 9 REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH S UCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A 8.1.2. ON A SIMPLE READING OF S.153C OF THE ACT, I T IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SU CH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPELLANTS CASE, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR ANY INCRIMINATE DOCUMENTS PERTA INING TO THE APPELLANT WERE SEIZED WHEN A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESI DENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI MIGLANI AND THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT , BUT, ONLY (PARA 3 OF ASST. ORDER) 3 .A SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 153C /148 IN THE CASE OF CBDL WAS ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE DCIT, CC-19, NEW DE LHI. THUS, THE AO, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WAS NOT WITHIN HIS REAL M FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT. PAGE 10 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/B ANG/2010 10 8.1.3. EVEN FROM THE LEGAL ANGLE TOO, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 153A R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BENCH IN THE CASE OF P SRINIVAS NAIK V. ACIT REPORT ED IN (2008) 114 TTJ (BNG) 0856 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECLARED THAT: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS AN UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS DO NOT BEL ONG TO THE ASSESSEE, AS THESE WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREM ISES OF SHRI REDDY. IT IS NOWHERE STATED THAT THESE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SHOWED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIO NS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O R DOCUMENTS CONTAINED THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO TH E GROUP CONCERNS OF SHRI REDDY. NO VALUABLE BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE TERMS BELONGING IMPLIED SOMETHING MORE THAN THE IDEA OF CASUAL ASSOCIATION. IT INVOLVES T HE NOTION OF CONTINUITY AND INDICATES ONE MORE OR LESS INTIMAT E CONNECTION WITH THE PERSON OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH HAVE A CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH THE GROUP C ONCERN OF SHRI REDDY. IT RECORDS THE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THAT GROUP. IT DOES NOT RECORD THE TRANSACTION CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER WEALTH-TAX ACT, ASSETS BELONGING TO ASSESSEE WERE TAXABLE. THE EXPRESSION BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE CONNOTES BOTH THE COMPLET E OWNERSHIP AND LIMITED OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST, OF COU RSE BELONGING TO IS CAPABLE CONNOTING INTEREST WHICH IS LESS THAN ABSOLUTE PERFECT LEGAL TITLE. HOWEVER, THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF INTEREST, IF IT IS TO BE PERMITTED THAT THE ASSETS BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, DOCUMENTS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZED CANNOT BE TE RMED TO BE INDICATING ANY LIMITED INTEREST OF THE OWNERSH IP OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS. THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 153C IS MATERIALLY DIFFEREN T FROM THE LANGUAGE USED UNDER SECTION 158BD. AS PER PAGE 11 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/B ANG/2010 11 SECTION 158BD, IF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATES TO OTHER PERSON, THEN ACTION AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON CAN B E TAKEN PROVIDED SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS REFERABLE TO THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, SECTION 153C SAYS THAT IF VALUABLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO OTHER PERSONS ARE SEIZED THEN ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST THAT PERSON. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE S ATISFIED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N INITIATING ACTION UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECT ION 153C OF THE ACT.. 8.1.4. INCIDENTALLY, THE EARLIER BENCH HAD, IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. SHRI LAKSHMAN B TUKRAL IN ITA NOS. 897 TO 902/BANG/2007 DATED 11.2.2011, ECHOED A SIMILAR VIEW THUS: 8.5. IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON JU DICIAL AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL H ONBLE BENCH AS WELL AS THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CIT ED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT WHEN THE CONDIT IONS PRECEDENCE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C R.W.S. 1 53A WERE NOT FULFILLED, AS RIGHTLY RULED BY THE HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT, ANY ACTION TAKEN U/S 153C OF THE ACT STA ND VITIATED. 8.1.5. ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYBHAI N CHANDRANI V. ACIT REPORTED IN (2 010) 231 CTR 474 (GUJ) RULED IN A SIMILAR WAY THUS: 13. THUS, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUING NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 153C AND ASSESSING OR REASSESSING INCOME OF SUCH PERSON, IS THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHE R PAGE 12 OF 12 ITA NOS.1375 TO 1378/B ANG/2010 12 VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHOULD BELONG TO SUCH PERSON. IF THE SAID REQUIREMENT IS NOT SATISFIED, RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 8.2. TAKING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND ALSO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE AS DISCU SSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE STAND OF THE CIT (A) IS JU STIFIED IN THE SENSE THAT THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SE CTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED AND, HENCE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 153C OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT , THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012 SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO:- 1.THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONCE RNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR 6. GF MSP/- BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.